Audiology & neuro-otology · 2017
A Retrospective Multicentre Cohort Review of Patient Characteristics and Surgical Aspects versus the Long-Term Outcomes for Recipients of a Fully Implantable Active Middle Ear Implant.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lefebvre Philippe P, Gisbert Javier, Cuda Domenico, Tringali Stéphane, Deveze Arnaud
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To summarise treatment outcomes compared to surgical and patient variables for a multicentre recipient cohort using a fully implantable active middle ear implant for hearing impairment. To describe the authors' preferred surgical technique to determine microphone placement.
STUDY DESIGN: Multicentre retrospective, observational survey.
SETTING: Five tertiary referral centres.
PATIENTS: Carina recipients (66 ears, 62 subjects) using the current Cochlear® Carina® System or the legacy device, the Otologics® Fully Implantable Middle Ear, with a T2 transducer.
METHODS: Patient file review and routine clinical review. Patient outcomes assessed were satisfaction, daily use and feedback reports at the first fitting and ≥12 months after implantation. Descriptive and statistical analysis of correlations of variables and their influence on outcomes was performed. Independently reported preferred methods for microphone placement are collectively summarised.
RESULTS: The average implant experience was 3.5 years. Satisfaction increased significantly over time (p < 0.05). No correlation with covariates examined was observed. Feedback significantly decreased over time, showing a significant correlation with microphone location, primary motivation, gender, age at implantation, and contralateral hearing aid use (p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was inversely correlated with reports of system feedback (p < 0.05). The implantable microphone was most commonly on the posterior inferior mastoid line, in 42/66 (65%) cases, correlating with less likelihood for feedback and consistent with author surgical preference.
CONCLUSION: Carina recipients in this study present as satisfied consistent daily users with very few reports of persistent feedback. As microphone location is an influencing factor, a careful surgical consideration of microphone placement is required. The authors prefer a posterior inferior mastoid line position whenever possible.
STUDY DESIGN: Multicentre retrospective, observational survey.
SETTING: Five tertiary referral centres.
PATIENTS: Carina recipients (66 ears, 62 subjects) using the current Cochlear® Carina® System or the legacy device, the Otologics® Fully Implantable Middle Ear, with a T2 transducer.
METHODS: Patient file review and routine clinical review. Patient outcomes assessed were satisfaction, daily use and feedback reports at the first fitting and ≥12 months after implantation. Descriptive and statistical analysis of correlations of variables and their influence on outcomes was performed. Independently reported preferred methods for microphone placement are collectively summarised.
RESULTS: The average implant experience was 3.5 years. Satisfaction increased significantly over time (p < 0.05). No correlation with covariates examined was observed. Feedback significantly decreased over time, showing a significant correlation with microphone location, primary motivation, gender, age at implantation, and contralateral hearing aid use (p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was inversely correlated with reports of system feedback (p < 0.05). The implantable microphone was most commonly on the posterior inferior mastoid line, in 42/66 (65%) cases, correlating with less likelihood for feedback and consistent with author surgical preference.
CONCLUSION: Carina recipients in this study present as satisfied consistent daily users with very few reports of persistent feedback. As microphone location is an influencing factor, a careful surgical consideration of microphone placement is required. The authors prefer a posterior inferior mastoid line position whenever possible.